Re: Abortion ethics dilema

[topaz~]

   One of the greatest debates in history is abortion. This is because, whether you speak to a secular humanist or a religious zealot, or anybody else, life is sacred. There are two sides to this debate; pro-choice and pro-life. The first refers to the mother's control over her own body, and having the ability to either abort or have the child – the second refers to having the child to be born regardless of circumstance or ability to care.

   So, there are really only two scenarios that exist here – it is wrong to kill babies (for in allowing the mother to choose you are giving her the choice as to kill or not to kill the baby), and it is wrong to deprive women of their freedom of choice and force them to bear a painful pregnancy. Taking the middle ground is to admit that one or both of these acts are happening.

   In today's society, abortion is permitted in some cases and disallowed in others. When it is denied, you are forcing a mother to have and potentially care for an unwanted child, and when you allow it, you are killing an infant who has done nothing to deserve it. If, say, you end a desired pregnancy through drunk driving, it is considered manslaughter under the legal system.

   This irregularity leads to only one conclusion – a fetus is human if, and only if, a mother wants it. Let us project this into our own lives; am I human only because those close to me love and continue to love me? Would it be objectionable for me to be killed if this were not the case? I hope not.

   I personally believe that abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law. It should not matter that the biological father was a rapist, or that the child's conception was a mistake – it should be allowed to live, to experience life, to make mistakes and to help others. If you were unable to care for the child, it ought be placed under the care of others through adoption or relatives, not be killed for the sake of convenience or some belief that it would cause the mother some amount of hardship.

   There are many ways to justify an abortion, used primarily to absolve the mother of guilt. The one used most often claims that the fetus is not alive until some point in time (the concept of trimesters), and therefore it is acceptable to kill it. As I see it, you can not redefine life through such debates because, by principle, you are denying your own existence and essentially, your own right to live.

   There is really no middle ground when talking about what life is and what is not. The matter of abortion should be carefully thought through by every one of us, because it is not merely a case of choice or infanticide; it goes to the very core of our own lives. The "politically correct" middle ground people so often desire to travel may be the safest route, but like many great debates, it is usually the only one that can be proved to be definitively wrong.

[Rule]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

This is because, whether you speak to a secular humanist or a religious zealot, or anybody else, life is sacred

No

when you allow it, you are killing an infant who has done nothing to deserve it

No

So, there are really only two scenarios that exist here

No

This irregularity leads to only one conclusion – a fetus is human if, and only if, a mother wants it

No.  Also human does not mean 'alive'.

There are many ways to justify an abortion, used primarily to absolve the mother of guilt.

No.  Some people just don't think a fertilized egg is important compared to other things.

[CrAz3D]

And some people don't think black people are as important as cheap labor....

[iago]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

Heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. He seems to be attempting to seem (or maybe genuinely trying, but poorly, to be) neutral, but is very clearly anti-abortion with everything he says.

[MyndFyre]

Who wrote that?  The air of objectivity in the introduction is so obviously a pretense -- so filled with faulty premises and subjective opinions stated as fact -- that the author's declaration that he believes "abortion should be socially abhorrent and also considered illegal under the rule of law" comes as no surprise.

Heh, I was thinking the exact same thing. He seems to be attempting to seem (or maybe genuinely trying, but poorly, to be) neutral, but is very clearly anti-abortion with everything he says.

Mostly I found it ironic that Rule was pointing out that someone else was being pretentious and using faulty assumptions. :P

I personally don't know anyone who isn't on one side or the other about the debate.  I suspect that it would be very difficult to find someone neutral on the subject.  The truth is, though, that it shouldn't be about whether someone is "neutral" in the debate or not.  If someone is making the effort to understand the claims of one side of an argument, and incorporating that information into her or his argument, shouldn't we just take it at face value?

You can very well disagree with what the person says, but what does it matter whether the person is being pretentious?

Now, if she is not fact-based, that's certainly something that is worthwhile to pursue.  But can that be it?  Repeatedly, against others and frequently myself, I see arguments that attack the person.  It's okay to call someone out when they're not being fact-based.  But there's a delicate line of balance at which it becomes disrespectful; and the truth is that, in civilized (or civilised, for those who prefer it) debate, we will get nowhere without respect.

[Rule]

Mostly I found it ironic that Rule was pointing out that someone else was being pretentious and using faulty assumptions. :P
etc

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321
You should recognize that your position is inconsistent, and perhaps reconsider it.  (Little chance of either happening in my opinion, no matter how obviously contradictory your arguments are.  I don't think you're interested in doing the 'right thing' in this case -- just in defending deep seeded beliefs).

[Newby]

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321

Outrageous indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention:

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

I too have a response:

FUCK
YOU

[iago]

I personally don't know anyone who isn't on one side or the other about the debate.  I suspect that it would be very difficult to find someone neutral on the subject. 

Well, I consider myself to be relatively neutral on the subject. I honestly have no strong opinion either way, and, further, I don't think a strong opinion on either side is even possible (appropriate?) with the facts as we know. So, if you want a neutral party, I'm your man!

The truth is, though, that it shouldn't be about whether someone is "neutral" in the debate or not.  If someone is making the effort to understand the claims of one side of an argument, and incorporating that information into her or his argument, shouldn't we just take it at face value?

Sure, it's fine for somebody with an agenda to make an argument, as long as:
a) They're honest about their agenda,
and b) They don't use the same old techniques always used (loaded terms, appeal to emotion, etc.)

I don't think that person did either.

in civilized (or civilised, for those who prefer it)

You got it right the second time. ;)

[MyndFyre]

Outrageous Myndfyre.  You are yet to respond to this post and the one that precedes it: http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12662.msg157321.html#msg157321

Outrageous indeed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention:

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

I too have a response:

FUCK
YOU

<3 Newby  :D

[Ender]

The fact that we're carrying around babymaking juice doesn't mean that Newby's destroying "potential" every time he pops in porn.  Since there's zero chance of him inseminating anything, nothing is lost.

Yes but your argument only works for Newby, who is sterile, and maybe also Towelie. (Personally I think it was all the "exploring" they did together, which did them in.)

But if we consider less unfortunate people, in light of your argument, why is it not immoral for a woman to live her life without giving birth to a child?